Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1/2016

01.01.2016

NegoChat-A: a chat-based negotiation agent with bounded rationality

verfasst von: Avi Rosenfeld, Inon Zuckerman, Erel Segal-Halevi, Osnat Drein, Sarit Kraus

Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

To date, a variety of automated negotiation agents have been created. While each of these agents has been shown to be effective in negotiating with people in specific environments, they typically lack the natural language processing support required to enable real-world types of interactions. To address this limitation, we present NegoChat-A, an agent that incorporates several significant research contributions. First, we found that simply modifying existing agents to include an natural language processing module is insufficient to create these agents. Instead, agents that support natural language must have strategies that allow for partial agreements and issue-by-issue interactions. Second, we present NegoChat-A’s negotiation algorithm. This algorithm is based on bounded rationality, and specifically anchoring and aspiration adaptation theory. The agent begins each negotiation interaction by proposing a full offer, which serves as its anchor. Assuming this offer is not accepted, the agent then proceeds to negotiate via partial agreements, proposing the next issue for negotiation based on people’s typical urgency, or order of importance. We present a rigorous evaluation of NegoChat-A, showing its effectiveness in two different negotiation roles.
Vorheriger Artikel Learning behaviors via human-delivered discrete feedback: modeling implicit feedback strategies to speed up learning
Nächster Artikel Human–agent collaboration for disaster response

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The GENIUS and ANAC websites can be reached though http://​mmi.​tudelft.​nl/​negotiation/​index.​php/​Genius.
 
2
We intentionally use the term score instead of utility because the score is the number of points the player can attain from a game’s outcome. While our agent maximizes the scoring function, this is not necessarily the case for human players. People’s utility functions may be based on factors not encapsulated by the scoring function. As we cannot model these unknowns, we refer to score and not utility.
 
4
The state-of-the-art in NLU for dialog systems is sequence classification [32]. We decided against this option because it requires too much labeling effort: while in multi-label classification you only need to label each sentence, in sequence classification you must label each fraction of a sentence. After deciding to use MLC, we did preliminary experiments in which we tried various state-of-the-art approaches to MLC [33‐37]. We also tried several kinds of base binary classifiers (Support Vector Machines, Bayesian Classifiers and Random Decision Forests), a classifier based on language models [38] and a spell-checker. We found out that the combination of HOMER with Modified Balanced Winnow, described above, had the best performance in terms of both classification accuracy and run-time.
 
5
We tried more sophisticated features, such as pairs of non-adjacent words, but this didn’t improve performance.
 
6
We used Amazon Turk as a convenient way to get sentences for training the NLU component. We could have used other ways, such as letting experts invent sentences and tag them. However, based on past experience we decided that using Turk is much cheaper. The total cost of gathering data from 22 people was only approximately $30 dollars.
 
7
Sentence-level accuracy is the number of sentences whose classification was exactly correct (i.e. the set of dialog acts returned by the MLC is identical to the correct set), divided by the total number of sentences. The 72 % accuracy was calculated using fivefold cross-validation on the set of 775 tagged sentences. Sentence-level accuracy is the strictest possible performance measure. In other measures, such as precision and recall, the performance of our NLU was higher.
 
8
A copy of the KBAgent and NegoChat-A agents are found at: http://​biu-ai.​com:​4014/​demo.
 
Literatur
1.
Hoppman, P. T. (1996). The negotiation process and the resolution of international conflicts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
2.
Byde, A., Yearworth, M., Chen, K.-Y., Bartolini, C., Aut ONA. (2003). A system for automated multiple 1–1 negotiation. In International Conference on Electronic Commerce.
3.
Jonker, C. M., Robu, V., & Treur, J. (2007). An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 15(2), 221–252.CrossRef
4.
Lin, R., & Kraus, S. (2010). Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 78–88.CrossRef
5.
Lin, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Barry, J. (2008). Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence, 172(6–7), 823–851.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef
6.
Oshrat, Y., Lin, R., Kraus, S. (2009). Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling, In AAMAS.
7.
Peled, N., Gal, Y. K., Kraus, S. (2011). A study of computational and human strategies in revelation games. In AAMAS.
8.
Peled, N., Gal, Y. K., Kraus, S. (2014). A study of computational and human strategies in revelation games. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1–25.
9.
Reyhan, A., & Pinar, Y. (2012). Learning opponents preferences for effective negotiation: An approach based on concept learning. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(1), 104–140.
10.
Rosenfeld, A., Zuckerman, I., Segal-Halevi, E., Drein, O., Kraus, S. (2014). Negochat: a chat-based negotiation agent. In International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS ’14 (pp. 525–532).
11.
Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 296–312.CrossRef
12.
Kristensen, H., & Garling, T. (1997). The effects of anchor points and reference points on negotiation process and outcome. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(1), 85–94.CrossRef
13.
Selten, R. (1998). Aspiration adaptation theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 1910–214.CrossRef
14.
Coen, M.H. (1998). Design principles for intelligent environments. In AAAI/IAAI.
15.
Cohen, P. R. (1992). The role of natural language in a multimodal interface. In UIST.
16.
Kenny, P., Hartholt, A., Gratch, J., Swartout, W., Traum, D., Marsella, S., Piepol, D. (2007). Building interactive virtual humans for training environments. In I/ITSEC.
17.
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Noida: Pearson Education India.
18.
Traum, D., Marsella, S., Gratch, J., Lee, J., Hartholt, A. (2008). Multi-party, multi-issue, multi-strategy negotiation for multi-modal virtual agents. In Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 117–130).
19.
Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K. V., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2011). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198(2013), 73–103.
20.
Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K. V., & Jonker, C. M. (2014). Genius: An integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Computational Intelligence, 30(1), 48–70.MathSciNetCrossRef
21.
Zuckerman, I., Rosenfeld, A., Segal-Halevi, E., Drein, O., Kraus, S. (2013). Towards automated negotiation agents that use chat interfaces. In ANAC.
22.
Bac, M., & Raff, H. (1996). Issue-by-issue negotiations: The role of information and time preference. Games and Economic Behavior, 13(1), 125–134.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef
23.
Busch, L.-A., & Horstmann, I. (1997). A comment on issue-by-issue negotiations. Games and Economic Behavior, 19(1), 144–148.MATHMathSciNetCrossRef
24.
Chen, M. K. (2002). Agendas in multi-issue bargaining: When to sweat the small stuff. Cambridge: Tech. rep Harvard Department of Economics.
25.
Sofer, I., Sarne, D., Hassidim, A. (2012). Negotiation in exploration-based environment. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
26.
Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2012). Modeling agents based on aspiration adaptation theory. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(2), 221–254.CrossRef
27.
28.
Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.MATH
29.
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and language processing (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
30.
Tsoumakas, G., Katakis, I., Vlahavas, I. (2008). Effective and efficient multilabel classification in domains with large number of labels. In Proceedings of the ECML/PKDD 2008 Workshop on Mining Multidimensional Data (MMD’08).
31.
Carvalho, V. R., Cohen, W. W. (2006). In KDD (pp. 548–553).
32.
Hahn, S., Dinarelli, M., Raymond, C., Lefevre, F., Lehnen, P., de Mori, R., et al. (2011). IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 19(6), 1569–1583.
33.
Crammer, K., Dekel, O., Keshet, J., Shalev-Shwartz, S., & Singer, Y. (2006). Online passive-aggressive algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 551–585.MATHMathSciNet
34.
Tang, L., Rajan, S., Narayanan, V. K. (2009). Large scale multi-label classification via metalabeler. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on World wide web, WWW ’09, ACM (pp. 211–220).
35.
Morbini, F., Sagae, K. (2011). Joint identification and segmentation of domain-specific dialogue acts for conversational dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 95–100).
36.
Madjarov, G., Kocev, D., Gjorgjevikj, D., & Džeroski, S. (2012). An extensive experimental comparison of methods for multi-label learning. Pattern Recognition, 45(9), 3084–3104.CrossRef
37.
Kocev, D., Vens, C., Struyf, J., & Džeroski, S. (2013). Tree ensembles for predicting structured outputs. Pattern Recognition, 46(3), 817–833.CrossRef
38.
Leuski, A., & Traum, D. (2008). A statistical approach for text processing in virtual humans. Tech. rep, University of Southern California, Institute for Creative Technologies.
39.
Dagan, I., Roth, D., Sammons, M., & Zanzotto, F. M. (2013). Recognizing textual entailment: Models and applications. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 6(4), 1–220.CrossRef
40.
Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., & Jonker, C. M. (2014). Effective acceptance conditions in real-time automated negotiation. Decision Support Systems, 60, 68–77.CrossRef
41.
Jonker, C.M., Robu, V., Treur, J. An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Journal 15.
42.
Visser, W., Aydogan, R., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C. M. (2012). A framework for qualitative multi-criteria preferences. In 4th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence.
43.
Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Kraus, S., Goldman, C. V., Gal, Y. (2012). Strategic advice provision in repeated human-agent interactions. In AAAI.
44.
Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., Holley, K. M., & Harris, M. A. (1995). Genie: A decision support system for crisis negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 14(4), 369–391.CrossRef
45.
Pommeranz, A., Wiggers, P., Brinkman, W. P., Jonker, C. M. Social acceptance of negotiation support systems: Scenario-based exploration with focus groups and online survey, Cognition, Technology and Work.
46.
Lin, R., Gev, Y., & Kraus, S. (2011). Bridging the gap: Face-to-face negotiations with an automated mediator. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6), 40–47.CrossRef
47.
Chalamish, M., & Kraus, S. (2012). Automed: An automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(3), 536–564.CrossRef
48.
Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg, L. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(4), 343–375.CrossRef
49.
Rosenfeld, A., Kraus, S. (2012). Providing arguments in discussions based on the prediction of human argumentative behavior. In AAAI.
Metadaten
Titel
NegoChat-A: a chat-based negotiation agent with bounded rationality
verfasst von
Avi Rosenfeld
Inon Zuckerman
Erel Segal-Halevi
Osnat Drein
Sarit Kraus
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9281-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Looking for Conflict: Gaze Dynamics in a Dyadic Mixed-Motive Game

OriginalPaper

Strategic advice provision in repeated human-agent interactions

OriginalPaper

Human–agent collaboration for disaster response

EditorialNotes

Guest Editorial

OriginalPaper

Evaluation of a trust-modulated argumentation-based interactive decision-making tool

OriginalPaper

Learning behaviors via human-delivered discrete feedback: modeling implicit feedback strategies to speed up learning

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise